From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47308-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2691 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2007 19:23:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 2677 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jan 2007 19:23:47 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from 195.22.55.53.adsl.nextra.cz (HELO host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net) (195.22.55.53)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:23:42 +0000
Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0MJNbBA020652; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:23:37 +0100
Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l0MJNa1V020651; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:23:36 +0100
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:23:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Follow specific symbol's DW_AT_decl_file
Message-ID: <20070122192336.GA20579@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <20070111223940.GA8958@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070121165451.GA12463@nevyn.them.org> <20070121223533.GA1890@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070121225610.GB29708@nevyn.them.org> <20070121232610.GA13031@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070122002611.GA1086@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070122002611.GA1086@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:26:11 +0100, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:26:11AM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > I hadn't tried that one before.  I used an old copy of glibc's memusage
> > > script; massif is a bit more interesting.
> > 
> > Thanks for the tip next time I need it.  Interesting valgrind's memcheck says
> > 618MB total and memusage 134MB total (55MB peak) but I did not check more.
> 
> memusage --mmap might be the difference.

That makes no difference.  But I found valgrind(1)'s memcheck counts
realloc(3)s' only the new sizes while memusage(1) counts realloc(3)s' size
differences.


Regards,
Jan